Search This Blog

Friday, December 9, 2016

above: Humanity does not Live by Bread Alone ; What about Democracy and Political Literacy in our Educational Curricula?Letters to 'The Age' and 'The Herald-Sun' from a Labor Activist (November/December 2016) ; Everything from ‘Public Debt Shibboleths’ to
Privatisation, Defending Democracy,The
Right Protest, Education for Politically Literate and Active Citizenship, and more ; Please feel welcome to read and comment on the articles, share via Facebook and so on.

Dr Tristan Ewins

Is there a public debt crisis?Or is the
Crisis one of Private Debt?

(Debt
letter One)(Unpublished)Regularly we are warned of the ‘immense
threat’ of government debt. But its
best, here, to use the measure of ‘net debt’ which also includes revenue from government
assets. (instead of ‘gross debt’ - which
does not)For example, with the
privatisation of assets like the Commonwealth Bank gross debt fell, but net
debt worsened significantly. Australian Governmentnet debt was recently measured around 18 per
cent of GDP : approximately $285 billion in an economy around AUS $1.6 billion.But HOUSEHOLD debt – ie: the debt owed by
Australian individuals and families – is over 100% of GDP -over $2 TRILLION.Private debt is clearly the bigger threat. The
Liberals try and offset private debt with public austerity – in health, education,
welfare, infrastructure. But these areas are often more crucial to our
well-being than private consumption.So
arguably we need a BIGGER social investment in these areas as opposed to cuts. We
need a more balanced approach ; containing debt long term – without gutting
public services and infrastructure, or destroyingjobs and growth. And now is a good time to invest in potential
income bearing (and other) government assets – on account of low interest
rates.A big investment in public
housing could also make housing more affordable –making significant inroads into private
household debt.We also need an industry
policy to achieve full employment –and full time jobs for those who want them.That could offset an ageing population
without resort to measures like raising the age of retirement.

(Debt
letter Two)(Published) Bruce
Hambour (Herald-Sun Letters, November 2016) writes that debt is getting so out of control
that welfare must be cut to rein it in. But why start by cutting the payments
for some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians when there are
other options?Why not drop massive
corporate tax cuts, and other tax cuts for the well off?Why not cut back Superannuation Tax
Concessions – mainly beneficial to the well-off – whom taxpayers are
effectively subsidising by tens of billions every year?Also public sector debt is actually
negligible compared with private debt.(approx. 30% of GDP compared with 200% of GDP)The housing bubble hasn’t helped ; and what’s
needed are big investments in public and social housing (to increase supply),
and in infrastructure and services (to ensure quality of life).Also Conservatives attempt to play the
working poor of against the vulnerable welfare-dependent.(divide and conquer) That’s better fixed by
raising the minimum wage, and improving the social wage for the working poor.

Herald-Sun Op-Ed Describes Labor Left Opposition to Privatisation as “Extremist”.

(Published)James Campbell (Herald-Sun, 24/11) depicts
Labor Left opposition to privatization as ‘extremist’.But what grounds are there for this
opinion?Most Australians did (and
still do) oppose privatization of important government assets.And the longest-serving Australian Liberal
Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, presided over a relatively larger public sector
(and more steeply progressive income taxes) than Labor governments of the 80s
and 90s.The ‘extreme’ tag is a flippant
way of dismissing an argument without having to engage or justify your
position.‘Natural public monopolies’
(eg: in water, communications, energy) would reduce costs for the broader
economy. And Medibank Private’s recent
privatization saw private health insurance costs rise as the newly-privatizated
corporation arguably began abusing its market power.The
Commonwealth Bank can also make profits close to $10 billion now.That means our net government debt position
is much worse now because of its privatization.Since its privatization there have also been problems with fees, and the
quality of services for regions and financially disadvantaged customers.

Herald-Sun letter calls for ‘Technocracy’ in place of Democracy

(Unpublished)Simon Hammond (Herald-Sun, 26/11) claims democracy
is to blame for weak and indecisive government .Instead he suggests a kind of ‘government of
experts’. (a technocracy) But the problem is not democracy ; it is particular
practices such as poll and focus-group driven politics ; and ‘gotcha’ politics’
which neglect the substance of policy choices.Another problem is the major parties all aiming for ‘the centre ground’
; not standing up for their beliefs. (‘Convergence politics’)That means weaker pluralism. That is, less
choice.In fact we need a stronger
democracy.A free multi-party system is
meant to ensure scrutiny of public policy and social issues ; but often media
neglect the substance ; and politicians respond by playing to shallow
agendas.We need to transform our
society ; which could be achieved partly through educational curricula for
active and politically literate citizenship ; which is ideologically inclusive
andencourages students to think about –
and stand up for - their values and interests.

Responding
to Andrew Bolt on the causes of the Trump Victory

(Unpublished)Andrew Bolt calls the Trump election victory
“a revolt against the Left’s arrogance” (Herald-Sun, 10/11). But reality is
more complex than this.A neo-liberal
consensus- a particular INTERPRETATION
of ‘globalisation’ - has prevailed around much of the world, facilitated by
BOTH the parties of the Right and of the ostensible Centre-Left. Working class
people who had lost their identity, as well as their economic and social
security with the destruction of their jobs – gravitated towards a promise to
restore America’s industrial base.Trump’s old school protectionism might not be
the answer, but Nordic-style, targeted industry policy might serve better.Policies which promote high value-added
manufacturing alongside Research and Development, and promotion of information
and communications technology industrial development.The US Left needs to actively court the
working class – including white males – with policies that offer the respect
and security which could be key to building a broad electoral bloc, and rolling
back Trump’s support base.

Why Scott Morrisson and the Liberals are Wrong on Company Tax Cuts

(to both
the Herald-Sun and The Age ; Unpublished)Today (28/11)it was distressing to see Treasurer Scott Morrison in Question Time
defending massive cuts to Company Tax.He referred to Trump’s objective of a 15% corporate rate, and suggested
Australia needs to be ‘competitive’.But
the United States had enjoyed a maximum corporate rate of 35% for many years
under both Republican and Democrat Administrations.Elsewhere, the reality is that high quality
social services, education, infrastructure are ‘pull factors’ for investment as
well.And this needs to be paid for
somehow.The Conservative approach is
‘corporate welfare’.That is: the
corporate rate is cut - but workers, pensioners, families ‘pay the price’ one
way another.Through unfair ‘replacement
taxes’ like the GST , or through a neglect of services and infrastructure which
is arguably bad for investment anyway. We need international agreement to stop
‘the race to the bottom’ in corporate taxation.Without this the economy will suffer anyway – as ‘corporate welfare’
takes income away from the very workerswhose consumption supports the domestic economy.

Feminist Revolution must take account of
class ; must be based on Mutual Respect and Empathy

(Unpublished)Trish Thompson (‘The Age’, letters;30/11) reminds us of “the privileges of being
a white heterosexual male”.But she
makes no mention of social class .That
determines our quality of life ; where our kids go to school ; often the
quality of our diet and health care; whether we can pay the bills and put a
roof over our heads ; what else we can enjoy outside of work.Other factors include whether or not our work
is fulfilling ; and what economic (and hence political) power we have.Why is class usually forgotten today ; or
otherwise relegated to a subordinate position?Age, body image and disability are also relatively neglected. We are in
the midst of what might be called a feminist revolution.What’s at stake is whether or not that
revolution is broadened in pursuit of genuine mutual solidarity and
liberation.Or whether there is a kind
of ‘turning of the tables’.Many men are
reacting against discourse they see as inferring ‘masculinity’ and male
sexuality are ‘essentially bad’.Without mutual respect and empathy there will be a reaction and the feminist
revolution might fail.

Working Class Men don’t have ‘a lot to gain’ from Deindustrialisation and
the Consequence is Unemployment and Poverty

(Unpublished)Jacqueline Maley (‘The Age’, 3/12/16)writes as if men have more to gain than lose
through deindustrialisation. The reality, though, is that older skilled
manufacturing workers will not find replacement work making use of their skill
sets.And service industry jobs are
unlikely to make up for the 50,000 jobs lost in the car industry and supporting
industries .The notion that when men
take up service industry jobs that these will rise in stature is
questionable.The balance of trade is
another associated concern.It is a
function of capitalism more so than patriarchy that ‘unprofitable’ service jobs
are devalued. For example, a better deal for both aged care workers AND residents
might ‘eat into corporate profits’ – directly (eg: through higher corporate
tax) or indirectly (with a reduction in private consumption power with higher
income or consumption taxes). That said
we do need to ‘valorise’ caring (often ‘feminised’) professions.We need a re-regulation of the
most-highly-exploited end of the labour market.To reform the tax mix and extend the social wage.Resistance to the extension and improvement
of social services is most likely to come from capitalists and their advocates
in the so-called ‘political class’ rather than from working class men.

We Must be unambiguous on the Right to
Protest ; and stand against even more regressive User-Pays in Tertiary
Education

(Part-Published)David Penberthy(Herald-Sun 4/12/16) condemns the protestors
who disrupted parliament the other day as ‘ratbags’. He goes on to support
user-pays in Higher Education, arguing ‘Why should blue collar workers pay for
someone’s Law degree?”In response ;
democracies must defend liberal and democratic rights, including speech,
association and assembly.But arguably a
mature democracy – which feels secure in itself - accepts there will be
occasions where differences of principle become so steep that accommodation
must be made for civil disobedience as well.Such flexibility helps define us as a genuinely *liberal* democracy. Furthermore: Penberthy’s defence of user pays
in Higher Education ignores the fact that were a greater portion of education
costs shouldered through income and corporate taxes – then roughly people and
interests would pay in proportion to the financial benefit gained.And if we wanted to reform the Higher
Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)to
make it fairer, then we might raise repayment thresholds.There are many former students on less than
the average wage who are forced to repay loans that bear no relation to their
actual incomes.Repayment thresholds
have fallen relative to the average wage: and that is unfair.

Why Political Literacy, and encouraging Active Citizenship must Have
Their Place in Educational Curricula ‘in a strong democracy’

(Unpublished)There is a developing view (Herald-Sun
Editorial, ‘Teach don’t Preach’ , 7/12/16) that ‘politics should be kept out of
the classroom’; and that means not only that teachers ‘should not be advocating
causes’ – but also that there should be a ‘back to basics’ movement emphasising
science and maths.The problem with this
is that education needs to be for life – and while maths and science have their
place, education for politically
literate and active citizenship can strengthen our democracy and empower our
citizenry to work for their beliefs, rights and interests. To achieve
bipartisanship – there needs to be a reformed National Curriculum – which
exposes students to the ideas of BOTH the Democratic Left and the Democratic
Right, while also imparting an understanding of other ideologies.As the saying goes ‘man does not live by
bread alone’.An active and informed
democracy should have bipartisan support across the Democratic Right and the
Democratic Left.

(Unpublished)Greg Byrne (Herald-Sun, 10/12/16)
refers toeducation about “gender,
ethnicity and class” as “nonsense” that has nothing to do with finding jobs.But the Humanities and Social Sciences involve
research and writing skills ; the construction of detailed arguments , and evaluating
complex information. Also humanity ‘does
not live by bread alone’. (ie: the labour market and work) A stronger democracy (based on understanding
and participation) rests on citizens’ political literacy (understanding
political ideologies, values, movements, processes) and on their powers of
expression. The Humanities and Social
Sciences drive us to ask fundamental questions about the human condition ;
about ethics ; and thinking critically about democracy, economy and society.In a strong
democracy we must be empowered to make informed choices as citizens – regardless
of whether we perceive ourselves as being of “the Right” or “The Left”. That means imagining alternatives to current
social and economic arrangements in pursuit of ‘The Good Society’. Here, assessing the balance of wealth, power and opportunity in society is a legitimate question.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Mourning the Death of Fidel Castro and RememberingReaders are encouraged to discuss Castro's legacy, and what happens in Cuba now

Tristan Ewins

News today of the passing away of former Cuban Marxist revolutionary and President Fidel Castro. Fidel rose to power through the vehicle of a popular insurgency which overthrew the corrupt US-backed Batista government.Turning to the USSR for support, Castro survived arguably hundreds of assassination attempts, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs invasion, and more.He built a one-party state – albeit one based on overwhelming popular mobilisation and participation.Arguably his government was authoritarian: though this must be largely understood in the context of terror attacks, and the aforementioned assassination attempts.Much like Western intervention in Revolutionary Russia drove Lenin to embrace a spiralling Red Terror (which ultimately descended into Stalinism), Castro embraced authoritarian measures to ward away his adversaries.Though certainly he was never a monster like Stalin. For decades Cubans flourished in the context of a system which prioritised Health Care for all,reducing infant mortality, eliminating illiteracy, and reaching out to Cuba’s neighboursthrough the vehicle of volunteer doctors and teachers. Indeed, on many indicators (eg: infant mortality) Fidel’s Cuba out-performed his neighbours, including the United States itself.

Castro was one of the earliest and most consistent opponents of Apartheid in South Africa. He actively supported revolutionary movements in Central and South America, including in Nicaragua and El Salvador.The brutality with which those movements were repressed – with US support – stands in stark contrast with many Western nations condemnation of Fidel’s government as ‘totalitarian’.Repression of left-wing movements, including the murder of Liberation Theologian Archbishop Oscar Romero ; saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

But when Communism collapsed in the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-1991 Cuba was left exposed to the long-term US Economic Embargo.Living standards fell on many indicators.But still Cubans overwhelmingly supported their government. Fidel lived to see the Cuban economy recover ; and to see his brother, Raul engage in ‘fence-mending’ with the government of Barack Obama.Under Raul there were market reforms – which were essential to Cuba’s survival, including its engagement with the rest of the world ;But Cuba’s identity and orientation remained inarguably socialist. For instance Cuba remained implacably in solidarity with the Leftist/Bolivarian governments of Venezuela.

All this aside, the threat of Terror and assassination do not fully explain or fully excuse repression in Cuba.There have been extrajudicial executions ; Imprisonment of political prisoners, systemic harassment of critics.Cuba’s government may have overwhelming popular support: but as Rosa Luxemburg effectively argued in contrast to Lenin and Trotsky: human rights and democracy must always also be rights for those who dare to think and speak differently.It is easy to romanticise Fidel’s reign given his enormous personal charisma.But on the Left we must keep in mind the shortcomings, also.And strive to do better.

Nonetheless for many of us on the Left this is a sad day.Fidel achieved so much in his leadership of socialist Cuba.And socialist Cuba’s survival in the post-Cold War world is remarkable.Fidel deserves to be remembered for the sum of his achievements and of his legacy.Some of that is questionable ; but much of it is laudable.When we remember him let it be in applying those same standards to our own governments ; and the governments of our historic allies.

'Political Correctness' is a common bogey deployed by the Right in order to wedge the Left ; But here 'Anti-Political-Correctness' is the much bigger problem when viewed in perspective ; (As effectively argued by former Keating speech writer, Don Watson) At the same time the Left needs to 'return to class' ; and engage with opinions we don't like. The 'political pressure cooker' alternative may blow up in our faces...

Dr Tristan EwinsIn response to the surprise Trump victory in the US
Presidential electionI’ve written a
couple of letters to Australian newspapers : though neither published yet.Before engaging in a broader examination of ‘political
correctness’ and ‘anti-political correctness’ (which I thought I’d deal with in response to
some negative commentary) – here are the letters in their original form.

First to ‘The Age’:

Hard as it may be to believe
there’s a silver lining to the US Election result. Instead of being taken for
granted one way or another, both Republicans and Democrats will now have to
take account of the needs of the US working class. Bipartisan support for the
neo-liberal interpretation of globalisation will need to be re-thought. In the
mid-West and elsewhere the industrial working class and its sons and daughters
have long suffered a deindustrialisation which robbed them of social and
economic security and identity. The Right also increasingly uses narratives of
‘Left elites’ and ‘political correctness’ to drive a wedge against the
progressive Left. An unambiguous return to class politics could sweep the rug
from under that strategy. The old Left made the mistake of taking working class
support for granted. Some in today’s US Democrats make the opposite mistake of
‘writing white male workers off’. What we need is a strategy to build a
multi-faceted electoral bloc based on a politics of solidarity, mutual respect,
and mutual liberation.

And also to the ‘Herald Sun’ ( a counter to Andrew Bolt):

Andrew Bolt calls the Trump election victory “a revolt against the Left’s
arrogance” (10/11). But reality is more complex than this. A neo-liberal
consensus - a particular INTERPRETATION of ‘globalisation’ - has prevailed
around much of the world, facilitated by BOTH the parties of the Right and of
the ostensible Centre-Left. Working class people who had lost their identity,
as well as their economic and social security with the destruction of their
jobs – gravitated towards a promise to restore America’s industrial base.
Trump’s old school protectionism might not be the answer, but Nordic-style,
targeted industry policy might serve better. Policies which promote high value-added
manufacturing alongside Research and Development, and promotion of information
and communications technology industrial development. Instead of taking their
orientation for granted, the US Left needs to actively court the working class
– including white males – with policies that offer the respect and security
which could be key to building a broad electoral bloc, and rolling back Trump’s
support base.

After I had posted one of these at Facebook I got the response from one reader:

“I see, so white males are the most important in all of
this are they?”

I was surprised at this as I thought many on the Australian
Left could see the problems with US politics ; that is – the lack of a clear
class perspective; and hence the political alienation of a great many American
workers. Great swathes of the American
working class have been co-opted by Conservative interests who play ‘divide and
conquer’.This is similar to the situation in
Australia.For instance where certain
media outlets play the working poor off against some of the most vulnerable
welfare recipients.

That strategy is detestable ; but has proven quite
effective.

The best response it to build solidarity – and promote the
rights and interests of both those on benefits AND the working poor.More robust labour market regulation and social
wage provision for the ‘working poor’ is a crucial strategy in response to those
Conservative ‘wedge strategies’ in Australia.

In the US, however, the Democrats have allowed themselves to
be wedged by propaganda which emphasizes themes of ‘political correctness’ , ‘Left cultural
elites’ and so on. (also similar to
Australia) What’s more, modern identity politics has paved the way for this
strategy’s success.The class perspective
was abandoned.There has been an
emphasis on the privileges of white men – but where class just never comes into
the picture. At its most vulgar and
simplistic this is interpreted by some as suggesting there is something just ‘essentiallybad’ with white male identity,
sexuality and status.
Race and gender no doubt need to be seriously taken into account when
constructing a critique of privilege and power in modern capitalist
societies.They are a big part of the
overall picture.We need greater
equality in the labour market, the public sphere, sport, the home, and so
on.We need a women’s movement which
demands these – and more.

But as former Keating speech writer Don Watson effectively argued on QandA
recently (I paraphrase) : ‘political correctness can be bad’ ; although ‘anti-political
correctness is much worse!’.

The lack of tolerance for real engagement with more
conservative social perspectives : indeed the tendency to supress debate for
fear of being vilified or shamed – actually plays into the Right’s hands.It can create a ‘pressure cooker’ environment
which can finally explode with the rise of a Trump-like character.And if people are already disengaged because
no-one is speaking to their economic and social interests ; and because they
are prejudged as ‘red-necks’ – that just facilitates the Conservative agenda.(not that Trump is ‘traditional Conservative’)

But sure - the monopoly mass media does
the same thing – but in reverse.Mostly
it fails to engage with progressive perspectives. Systemically excludes them on any significant
scale. Often it facilitates that strategy of ‘divide and conquer’.It facilitates intolerance, fear, ‘downward
envy’ and so on.Often it is intellectually
dishonest.

Compared with so-called ‘political correctness’ the ‘anti-PC’ movement is so frightening as it could facilitate a
full-on political and social Reaction : perhaps even fascism in some instances.There is a disposition to wind back past
gains: social security and welfare ; affirmative action and women’s right to
choose ; the welfare state and social wage. Civil and industrial liberties are
mocked, belittled and trivialised.

Here I had chosen in one of my letters to mention white working class men
specifically because of their strategic importance ; but also because they
matter as human beings ; and should just not be ‘written off’. Karl Marx argued for the human liberation of
ALL working people.Facilitating the
fullest possible human development of all working people ; and the amelioration
(and finally abolition) of alienating forms of human labour under conditions of
material abundance.That is: Marx
critiqued physically and/or mentally punishing labour with people treated
people like ‘cogs in the machine’.Where
labour was for subsistence ; and its fruits are taken by capitalists in the
form of a surplus. So emphasising
peoples’ class interests could be ‘the foot in the door’ – to gain peoples’
trust for a broader strategy of mutual solidarity ; and of building an
unbeatable electoral bloc.
I like to think of the strategy I propose as one of ‘mutual liberation’.The aim, here, is not to write off or
humiliate those demographics who are considered ‘problematic’.But rather to suggest that the liberation of
each is interconnected with the liberation of all. This should involve a real conversation:
about democracy, and about class, race, sexuality, liberal rights, education
and civic activism, and gender.
In Australia right now it could be argued we’re wrapped up in veritable ‘cultural
revolution’ with regard to gender and sexuality. Broadly this revolution is a good thing. But arguably sometimes ‘the Left’ gets it
wrong.Privilege can be conceived of in
a overly-simplistic way: not only neglecting social class , but also age,
disability, body image and so on.What
is more: real privilege is complex.If
we are to employ an approach of ‘intersectionality’ (ie: the various forms of
privilege and the ways in which they intersect) we need to use those more
complex variations on that framework : which look to specific experiences.Not ONLY the large scale social relations of
inequality and oppression ; but ALSO the highly individualised
experiences.When we accept this we can
see that we ought not judge any person until we fully understand their
individual circumstances.Without
accepting this we are left in the position of unnecessarily alienating some
people: people who might otherwise be convinced if there was a strategy of
respectful engagement.
But where the project of liberation is subverted into becoming a project of ‘turning
the tables’ this also can fuel a political and social reaction.It can ‘blow up in our faces’ with exactly
the opposite consequences to what we aspired towards.

So the Trump electoral result is a real wake-up call for the broad American
Left.‘Class’ has to return to the front
and centre of progressive American politics.Promotion of working class interests is a good thing in itself ; but
also ‘a foot in the door’ for a broader engagement on the project of mutual
human liberation.
Active and targeted industry policy is a desirable strategy to engage with the
needs and aspirations of the traditional industrial working class.To achieve full employment ; and the creation
of secure, well paid jobs.The movement
for a $15/hour minimum wage needs to be fully embraced – and even updated to
account for inflation and a rising cost of living. Industrial rights and
liberties are paramount.The
neo-liberal interpretation of free trade and globalisation needs to be
re-thought in a way which does not undermine popular sovereignty.While nonetheless encouraging nations to take
advantage of each others’ specialisations and comparative advantages.And
making the most of everyone’s‘skill
sets’ ; not leaving them on ‘the labour market scrapheap’. And the benefits of
the social wage and welfare state need to be sold to layers of the working class
which used to enjoy such benefits provided through the private sector.

Finally I should mention the fact that despite
being slaughtered in the electoral college vote, Hillary Clinton won a clear majority
of the popular vote.In this scenario
the ‘industrial rust belt’ really was critical to the Trump ‘electoral college
landslide’. That’s the sense in which we
have ‘a silver lining’.That those
displaced by a decades-long process of deindustrialisation must finally be
taken seriously.That workers’ interests
more broadly will be embraced as being of real strategic value.That the working class will no longer be practically
‘invisible’ in American politics.

The question of Trump’s ‘mandate’, however - and the ‘mandate’ of the
Republicans more broadly – needs to be viewed in this context.Also it is cause to apply a critical eye to
the US electoral system.It demands constitutional reform.

Finally: although Bernie Sanders will not likely re-emerge as a Presidential
candidate in four years time, nonetheless the movement he helped create is far
from exhausted. If anything it may gain momentum if Trump’s failure to deliver
disillusions parts of his base.Economically Left: they are in a position to appeal to workers’
interests.

Hillary Clinton has not ‘shattered the glass ceiling’.And indeed while her victory would have been
of great symbolic importance – it is actually POLICY and how it affects
specific groups which matters most.Clinton will not likely return ‘for another shot’ in four years’ time.But also it really is only a matter of time
before a woman ‘takes the top job’.Also
she was the first woman candidate to run in a US Presidential election.And she won the popular vote. Regardless of her flaws: that will go down as
history.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

above: The Economic Policy Contest between Clinton and Trump is more interesting than a first glance may suggest

Dr Tristan Ewins

This week I begin my blog post with a correction. In an earlier article I described Donald
Trump as ‘a neo-liberal’. Based on
corporate welfare policies – such as cutting corporate tax by more than half ,
as well as cutting other taxes affecting corporations – this may have appeared accurate. But upon closer inspection this election is
more interesting than it first appears.

Yes, Trump wants to hold minimum wages down to the existing miserly rate of
$7.25 an hour. Yet Democrats are campaigning for an increase to $15 an hour. For
the American working poor this could prove to be a real watershed. Though Clinton has only absolutely committed to a rise to $12/hour she will be under significant moral and political pressure to go further. That could result in a defining moment for social justice in the
workplace at ‘at the lower end’ in America. But the centre-piece of Trump’s economic
policy is a reversion to protectionist policies. Hence Trump's position is NOT 'neo-liberalism as usual'. He has talked about a 25% tariff on Chinese
goods and a 35% tariff on Mexican goods.
The immediate effect of this may well be to shore up some American jobs
; but there’s the prospect of economic retaliation as well. If that happens it could hurt everyone.

Trump is assuming massive growth in jobs and investment –
and that revenue from tariffs will pay for the massive tax cuts ; as well,
perhaps, as reductions in some military expenditure – pressuring NATO allies,
and East Asian allies such as Japan and South Korea to invest more into their
own defence. Hence Australian
commentators such as Paul Kelly suggest (I paraphrase here) a ‘US withdrawal from the world stage’ , and
the end of the US as ‘world’s policeman’, ‘enforcing a liberal political model’,
including in our region. (though In
reality the US was often concerned with its diplomatic and economic hegemony
more-so than ‘enforcing liberalism’) Conservative commentators such as Greg
Sheridan fear US partial withdrawal from the region and what it might mean for
Australia. (eg: pressures to increase our Defence budget)

Hillary Clinton’s economic policies contrast quite starkly
with Trump’s economic policies. She is
proposing big investments in
infrastructure, child care, and in boosting
women’s economic participation. Also
borrowed from Bernie Sanders – she is proposing policies to cut back student
debt and hence make tertiary study more accessible. Further she supports profit sharing with
workers, collective bargaining rights for organised labour, and investment in
the broader education system – both academic and vocational training. She’s
also supporting longer-term investment by taxing short term investment more
severely than long term investment .

Other authors are also pointing to the malaise amongst
layers of the US working class – still scarred by the process of
deindustrialisation which took effect from the 1970s to the 1980s and 1990s. Authors observe the loss of certainty and security.
Often there have been much lower
wages. Losses of health benefits. Loss of respect, working class identity,
organisation and social networks. And
where the US Democrats have increasingly pitched their message to ‘the middle’
, working class Americans are sometimes left to wonder ‘if they really matter
anymore’. Many modern middle class liberals
have a lot to say about the privileges of being white and male, but have had
little to say about the working class ; or about class more generally. These ‘blind-spots’ have left many working
class Americans disoriented ; and at least Trump was speaking to their
experiences, fears and insecurities. Even if his ‘solutions’ are dubious. Sometimes working class Americans even feel
patronised by a ‘middle class liberal establishment’ which hasn’t taken class
seriously enough ; which sometimes have disrespected or misunderstood them, or
subjected them to caricature.

On the other hand Clinton’s policies do offer more social mobility
through greater access to tertiary education.
And while she won’t restore the industrial working class jobs which many
look back to as representing a kind of ‘heyday’ ; some working poor Americans
could see close to a doubling of their hourly
wages rate. Some jobs might go ; but others will be
created by the increase in consumption power.
Clinton has some good economic policies – obscured by the never-ending
mud-slinging ; the constant emphasis on ‘dirt’ and ‘denigration of character’. (which has become the defining feature of the
campaign for both sides)

That said Clinton needed to do more and say more to win over great swathes of
working class America.

US industrial working class music icon, Bruce
Springsteen has called Trump a ‘conman’ with ‘glib’ and ‘superficial’ ‘answers’
to a problem which has spanned over several decades. Massive tariffs on China and Mexico are a
very blunt instrument. Again, they may
provoke retaliation which ends up hurting everyone. What jobs are created will possibly pale in
comparison to the collapse in corporate tax revenue , with a loss of public
sector jobs.

But a more nuanced industry policy – such as the Nordics
have experimented with over the decades - should not be considered ‘out of the
question’. Furthermore: The age of retirement must not rise – either
in America or in Australia – in order to buoy the economy. That’s the wrong approach – which depresses rather
than improves real living standards. (ie: with a ‘work/life balance’) Neither should labour market deregulation aim
to ‘clear the labour market’.

Strategic economic intervention makes more sense. Targeted education and training linked with
job creation for existing/sympathetic skill sets. More extensive retraining where necessary for
those deemed capable. Perhaps even
government support for workers co-operatives – providing tax breaks and
co-investment to help maintain jobs, and improve economies of scale without
dependence on take-over capital.

The US government needs a PLAN for a far more balanced and equitable labour
market and economy. Clinton’s increase in the minimum wage is a good
start ; as are her plans for accessible education and greater economic and social
mobility. But depressed regions cannot
just be left ‘to carry the can’. Durable
jobs need to be created and maintained over the long term. And communities need to be reinforced around
the necessary social infrastructure. Where
the loss of well-paying working class jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry
saw the loss of private sector benefits in areas like health – the State needs
to step in and fill the gap. The social
wage is potentially the answer for both middle income and lower income
Americans. And the working class needs
to return to ‘the front and centre’ of Democrats policy and rhetoric.

The real danger now is that Trump is gathering enough momentum to deny the
Democrats control of BOTH Houses ; ie: the House of Representatives AND the US
Senate. SOME of the truly progressive
policies emanating from Hillary Clinton have been derived from Bernie Sanders ;
and enshrined in the Democratic Platform.
With control of both houses and massive political and moral pressure to
implement that platform – we could see some truly meaningful gains under a
Clinton Presidency. But failure to speak
to the fears and insecurities of the US working class – including recognition
of the dignity of labour – have undermined the Democrats position ; and left
these people exposed to Trump’s demagogic posturing on the home front.

Even on parts of the Left some are also fearful that Clinton may prove to be too
‘Hawkish’ on the foreign policy front.
Trump is seen by some as ‘the lesser evil’. Julian
Assange will likely never forgive the US Administration’s pursuit of him under
Obama. L.B.Johnson implemented ground-breaking
‘Great Society’ social and welfare policies – but will be remembered by most as
pursuing the war in Vietnam. We need a
United States which doesn’t just ‘roll over’ in the face of aggression. But which at the same time goes to extraordinary lengths to maintain peace as well. And which
appreciates the concerns of other Great Powers where they are legitimate. Yet a vacuum from any US withdrawal within
our own region could create more instability, not less. (though no I am not making excuses for past US policies, such as support for the Suharto regime)

The US Presidential Election is almost upon us.
Let’s hope for a Clinton victory.
But also for a reformed Democratic Party which speaks to – and shows
clear respect for – the United States’ working class.

THE RED FLAG IS STILL FLYING HERE

INTERESTED IN SPONSORING THIS PAGE?

This blog and several other websites are maintained by Tristan Ewins for nothing in return. But I would greatly appreciate any progressive sponsors. This page and others I maintain attract many thousands of visitors every year. Some posts even attract over 1000 readers on their own. So in return for a significant donation your Advertisement or Message could appear here and at my other pages! That is: assuming you support the blog and its message, as well as other sites where your message could appear. Contact me at the following email if you are interested:tristane@bigpond.net.au

Total Pageviews

About Me

Tristan's areas of expertise include Australian and world politics, social theory, education, history, and computer gaming for PC. He considers himself a liberal, and also a socialist, but has also referred to himself as a left social democrat. He says such - conscious that there was once a time when 'social democracy' and 'socialism' were synonymous. Furthermore, Tristan is a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party - specifically its Socialist Left wing. He is also involved in the Australian Fabian Society. Tristan has written for many publications - including a stint freelancing for 'The Canberra Times': the daily broadsheet of the Australian Capital. Tristan's Personal Homepage is here: http://sites.google.com/site/tristanewinsfreelancewriter